An Important Debate, Or Old Men Arguing Over Minute Details

As a communications student I have often asked myself why communication studies has so many extremely similar theories? Of course this is merely my opinion but nevertheless, with this weeks reading it came to my mind yet again. Is it because these details are crucial to our understanding of communications, or is it because people are seeking fame by having a better theory than those before them? I am only in my second year and so I cannot hope to comment on all the theories out there; I will, however, speak of the theory in the reading assigned this week.

At first glance the reading of Stuart Hall Encoding/ Decoding seemed like another minute detail being argued. That opinion did not last long. Unless I am gravely mistaken, the reading was emphasizing the importance of meaning within a message. Any person can make noise, but noise cannot persuade anyone. Noise cannot be used during a meeting to convince your boss to change business strategies, it cannot gain praise as a wonderful rhetoric that changes lives. Noise is just noise. In my opinion messages that are not understandable are noise. The only issue is that noise to one person may hold meaning to another.

Since I do not speak Mandarin, if I saw a novel written in Mandarin that would be considered noise to me. Although it may be one of the most profound readings that I could have ever hoped to cross paths with, it will remain noise to me. This will hold true unless I learn the language. Does that mean that now if I consider anything to be noise I should disregard it? I would not say so, not unless I didn't have the means to be able to decode it. Some noise comes in the English language, what is the excuse for that? There may be some things like math or science that I do not understand, therefore constituting noise to myself, but are still meaningful. At the same time I could be reading an illegible essay due to grammar and spelling mistakes that had no significant point to relay in the first place. By now I would hope that you are asking yourself what is the point in all that? The point is that although there may be messages which indeed hold meaning, unless the message is conveyed clearly it will lose it's meaning when being given to others. Therefore, communicating meaning is essential regardless of how intelligent or un-intelligent any given writing may be. If a communicator wishes to give a message to any audience, than the meaning must be the quintessential objective of that message.

If I wish to pursue a career in communications I must be a master at conveying meaning. This is more difficult than writing for the sake of it, or speaking without thinking. In order to truly motivate people, influence people, persuade people, disengage people, appease people, or to just get people to agree with me, I must be a master at conveying meaning. When I am a master of meaning I will be a master of communication. That is why encoding and decoding are important.

Encoding and decoding show that information is not merely being given, but is being formulated on and worked with. It is a process of creating a message and a process of understanding a message. Therefore communication is not as simple as the silver bullet theory for example, where a sender simply gives a message to a receiver. This seems easy and effortless. When two people communicate they are attempting to understand each other. Encoders are trying not to be misunderstood and decoders are attempting to understand the messages. It is a process that requires both individuals work and effort.

If the encoder lacks a decoder no communication can take place. The encoder must be willing to encode just as much as the decoder must be willing to decode. Therefore, if a teacher has a wonderful class, full of easy to understand examples, and everyone in the class understands the message, if one person decides not to pay attention then communication was not made with that individual. Of no fault to the teacher, the student decided not to pay attention to any of the well formulated encoded messages. Since the student did not take the time to decode any of the messages the student will leave having understood nothing. Cooperation, therefore, is crucial to the process of communicating. Individuals must work to make communication, it is not a job just for an encoder or a decoder. Unfortunately it is not as simple as sending a message and others receiving it. There is effort on both sides and, in my opinion, that was an important detail to bring to debate.

Daniel Innocent